An Article Written by Dr. Neil Chadwick
Over the past few years, a relatively new scientific approach to the study of the Bible has become the darling of evangelical scholarship. Reacting to the twin Philistine giants of atheism on the one hand, and the subjectivity of religious experience on the other, bright stars in the constellation of conservative scholarship have insisted on the development of intellectual inquiry as the main course in the diet of serious Bible students everywhere. This, of course, has been aided tremendously by the explosion of available information within our culture at large. We now have at our finger tips, and quickly deposited on our monitor screens, a wealth of Biblical data begging for analysis. Much of this is new information, results of discoveries and scrutiny which has come to the surface within the recent 50 years, and quickly disseminated through new media technologies. Consequently, the message of the Bible is now available for inspection by a new proud class of "experts in the Law". These are the Biblical scholars who claim for themselves an educational edge, the ability to assimilate all of the available information: archaeological, geographical, historical, grammatical, linguistical, cultural. To a lesser degree, these scholars may also employ the psychological, anthropological, phenomenological and sociological. At times, though not often, they touch on the moral and ethical. The spiritual, like Cinderella, isn't invited to the party at all. The term which we may use as a handle on this relatively new pursuit is the "hermeneutic of original intent". Its well meaning proponents have responded to the excesses of personalized interpretations, particularly noting those which have resulted in the wilderness wanderings of large numbers of followers, if not actual heretical teachings and practices. While this concern must not be winked at, neither should we ignore the warning flags which at present wave in the face of this sterile intellectual approach to Bible study. The truth is, that for some, the "hermeneutic of original intent" raises as many questions as it answers. And the questions raised may turn out to be quite penetrating and compelling. Why is this? Because the answers provided by the pursuit of "original intent" are hard answers. They represent objective information; reality which can be verified by a methodology which is approved by this age's scientific method, and thus are considered to be trustworthy in the thinking of the left brain dominant, western culture. But on the other hand, the questions raised in response to this methodology are categorized as soft. They raise concerns, and even doubts; they may leave us insecure, and worried that what we thought we learned about God is still open for inquiry, that "seeking" God is still something we must do. That's why the questions are more compelling, they urge us on, keep us seeking, never allowing us to rest on the abundance of our humanly acquired knowledge. And they are penetrating because the acquisition of alleged factual information is unsatisfying. We really do believe there is more, and our lives are dedicated to the pursuit. So, the "original intent" of this paper is to raise some questions about "original intent". Hopefully it will prod dedicated readers of Scripture to acknowledge (if not accept) the uncomfortable perspective that this scientific approach to Biblical interpretation may, at best, leave us hungering for nourishment. Perhaps more alarmingly, it will cause our spiritual arteries to be clogged, overloaded with the cholesterol of intellectual vanity, and so inhibit the flow of the life giving Word of God. To change the metaphor, one wonders just how much benefit would be derived from a scenic fall foliage bus tour in New England if passengers, instead of looking out of the windows, are busy studying manuals which explain leaf formations, or scientific journals related to map drawing. So let's raise some questions. Question #1. If "original intent" is a hermeneutic requirement, then why isn't it revealed? Where in inspired text is there any indication that this kind of study must precede reliable understanding and application? Please note that if we are faithful to the hermeneutic of "original intent", and thus interpret all of Scripture according to the dictates of this science, we will actually end up discovering that the methodology we have come to hold dear is, in fact, not divinely demanded. In that case, integrity will expect us to abandon the very process we just declared to be the only reliable one! The Biblical text which some may claim as support for the vital necessity of intellectual investigation in order to properly interpret the Scriptures is Paul's familiar counsel, "Study to show yourself approved of God, a workman who needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Found in the Apostle's second letter to his Ephesus delegate, Timothy, this verse has been used to motivate the young towards the diligent research into Scriptures so as to interpret them correctly. The inference is that those who are successful with regard to their acquisition of knowledge (i.e. "study") will be more prepared to "handle" the Word right. This then becomes a call to would-be teachers to do their homework well so that in the end they will be approved of God. The rendition of the Amplified Bible is a product of this interpretation, "...correctly analyzing and accurately dividing - rightly handling and skilfully teaching - the Word of Truth." (332) But it seems that this approach misses the point. Actually, the activity of book learning is not at all what Paul has in view here, and we may even be reminded by the Old Testament Preacher, "Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body." {Ecclesiastes 12:12 - It may be argued by some that this verse represents the view of the aged, depressed Solomon who sees life from a humanistic view where everything comes up empty and devoid of meaning. In answer, it must be recognized that these words immediately precede his concluding advice, "Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man." In other words, examination for the purpose of analysis will be futile. What has value is a life which demonstrates faithfulness in devotion and morality.} Actually, II Timothy 2:15 is simply a call to diligence, and a call to confirm with the life what is spoken with the lips. The anti Gospel teachers of Paul's day led their disciples toward godlessness; teachers of the truth must provide powerful examples of godliness. We note that the passage ends with the remark that those whose confession in Christ is true demonstrate that confession by turning from wickedness. To "handle the word of truth correctly" makes no reference to the utilizing of required exegetical tools or skill. Rather, it informs Timothy that "He is superior to the false teachers, not because he can present the word better, nor because he offers it in a theologically legitimate form, but because he follows this word of truth aright in his own life, and thus confirms it." (Friedrich V 8 p 112) Are there any other Biblical passages which may be pressed into the service of supporting the intellectual search for "original intent"? Perhaps the account of a group of Synagogue worshipers in the Greek city of Berea would qualify. Luke commended these who diligently "searched the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 16). What had they done to contrast them so sharply with the young believers in Thessalonica? It seems that they simply wanted to examine the Old Testament passages cited by Paul in order to see for themselves whether or not the alleged prophecies were truly Messianic. They were commended for their diligence, not because of a particular methodology. There is no suggestion given that they utilized any interpretive principles other than the acceptance of the plain reading of the text. They found the passages Paul referred to, and with this they were content. For this they were, and continue to be applauded. Consider the very words of Jesus when He confronted the teachers of His own day. "Search the Scriptures", He said, "For in them you believe you will have eternal life." Certainly this audience had at their disposal all of the best interpretive aids available at that time in history. Jesus did not bid His listeners to use any such tools. He simply encourages them to look and see, the answers to the questions about eternal life will be found. It's not hidden from those who are willing to look. There is no restriction. The common people, without any access to the tools of the scientist, were violently pressing into the kingdom. And today they continue to do so, and we must put no stumbling block in their path, nor give them a burden too heavy to bear. Nothing could be more obvious than the fact that nowhere do the authors of the New Testament commission us to analyze the text of their writings. Something, or rather Someone, must have been influencing subsequent generations of disciples to even preserve these writings. If "original intent" were to be the guiding principle, there would actually be no reason for their preservation. Once the people and groups read what had been written for the instruction needed for their contemporary situation, there would be no reason to maintain and copy them. Indeed, we believe the early Christians were prompted by the Spirit to preserve the documents, and in so doing they established a clear precedent that "original intent" should in no way limit how these very documents should be utilized. Question #2. Do new Testament authors follow this hermeneutic of "original intent"? If we claim inspiration for NT writings, does it follow that their method of interpretation is also inspired? Or perhaps we might ask, are we superior to them? Consider these examples: In Hosea (11:1) we read, "Out of Egypt have I called my son". Matthew (2:15) applies this to the sojourn of Jesus when he was taken there by Joseph fleeing from murderous Herod. Was this in tune with the "original intent" of the prophet? Certainly not. Hosea was clearly speaking of the Exodus. When Paul referred to the rock which provided water for the Israelites, he claimed that the rock was Christ (I Corinthians 10:4). Is this an interpretation which is consistent with what the narrator had in mind when this story was written (Exodus 17, Numbers 20)? Obviously Paul was going far beyond the "original intent" which was in one case to demonstrate God's provision for His people, and in the other, to provide an explanation as to why Moses was not allowed to enter into Canaan. When Isaiah wrote of the preacher's anointing (chapter 61) he was referring to his own role of proclaiming a termination of the Assyrian captivity. Yet Jesus clearly applies this differently when he visits the synagogue at Nazareth, indicating that these words were prophetic of His Messianic role. It is widely accepted that Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy (8:3) when He withstood the temptation to end His fast by means of a miracle. In this case it could be contended that Jesus used this quote in a way that was consistent with its original intent. While rehearsing Israel's history, Moses was giving a reminder of God's humbling the children of Israel and testing to see if they would be faithful to the commands, even though sustenance would not come from ordinary means. God would supply by means of manna instead of bread, could they trust in His word? Jesus refuses to utilize His divine prerogatives to supply this need, He would trust in His father's provision as promised in the Word. However, when it comes to Luke's third temptation, the relationship between what Deuteronomy reports and how Jesus uses the quote seems less certain. The testing of the Israelites had to do with their complaining about the lack of provision. We would say, "God's patience was tested". But if Jesus, at Satan's bidding, had flung himself from the temple tower, He would have purposely placed Himself in harm's way, presuming on God's goodness to save Him. This does not appear to represent the same kind of "testing" as the Israelites were guilty of in the wilderness. The answer commonly given is that this high flying dare devil act encouraged by Satan would be the result of a lack of faith on Jesus' part. In other words, He didn't need to do what Satan suggested because His faith was solid - He didn't need proof from a "reliability check" on God. However, it seems far more plausible to go with the plain reading, and accept the fact that Jesus apparently used the Scripture in a manner different from the way it was intended by the original author. Another prime example is Peter and his famous sermon on the day of Pentecost. Joel is quoted (2:28-32), and his prophecy applied to the day of Peter (Acts 2:17-21). What Pentecostal would disagree with this use of the prophet's message? But did Joel have the Jerusalem outbreak of "glossolalia" in mind when he spoke these words? Obviously not. He was uttering a comforting word during the crisis of the locusts, and promising a God-sent deliverance. Peter makes no mention of the little beasts, and instead applies these words to the startling events that were taking place following the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. In the previous chapter in Acts, Peter, preparing to conduct a selection for what he supposed to be the required replacement for Judas, quotes from two of David's Psalms. Once again, it's very plain to see that he did not use these passages according to their intended purpose. "May their place be deserted" (Psalm 69:25) is a wish spoken as a prayer by David against his enemies. The same may be said of Psalm 109:8, "may another take his place of leadership." Of course, there are those who will give interpretive liberty to New Testament writers not granted to subsequent writers. But on what basis is this done? Certainly the internal testimony of Scripture is silent at this point. We are left to conclude that it must then be the traditions of men which impose such a restriction.
|
- - 
- 
- 
- - 